Does it really matter whether the Saviour was born on December 25, or four years later on April 15? For the vasyt majority of those who care, the primary issue is that the birth be celebrated and that the celebration entails all that they acclaim as important to their faith that Christ was the saviour. OTOH, it is the business of scholars to investigate the limits of existing knowledge, which includes how things might really have been around the time of the birth of Christ. Accepting both concepts at the same time is no more inconsistent than believing in the existence of the Christian god while acknowledging the accuracy of the theory of evolution.
I certainly believe in the magic of the holiday, because I've seen many good things come of it. And, like anything humans touch, there's a downside too, what with over-commercialization, neighbors becoming angry at each others' garish Christmas light displays, and chip-on-shoulder adherents of other (or no) belief systems stirring up resentment that so many people might actually enjoy believing in something that they don't. Anymore, I just smile at people so benighted they can't see the upside of a year-end festival with an underlying message of generosity and caring. To write it off on the basis of those whose behavior specifically denies the underlying message is to send the baby wailing down the drain with the filth.
There's no reason for anyone to celebrate Christmas if they don't want to, whether for religious reasons or as a matter of taste. There's also no reason to denigrate the holiday. If negativism is in any way justified, it ought to be focused on those who prevert the underlying message.
Mark Schynert